ENSU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 1536

[Translation]

The Chairman (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): First of all I'd like to welcome the witnesses appearing today.

[English]

In welcoming you, I'll ask for your indulgence for a few minutes while the committee deals with a motion that was discussed and almost finalized at the last meeting but, because of a lack of quorum, could not be passed. Today, however, at the beginning of the meeting, as is often the case, we do have a quorum, so we would like to take advantage of that fact to entertain a motion that will be read in its final form.

Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Charbonneau were the drafters at the last meeting. For those of you who are here today but couldn't attend the last time, it is a motion that deals with the citizens of Lac St-Pierre and Nicolet who came forward and presented their grievance with respect to the activities of the Department of National Defence.

Therefore, since we do have a quorum, and if the committee is ready, and if someone is willing to read the final text of the motion as has been discussed or finalized, I would by all means recognize whoever that person is.

[Translation]

Mr. Charbonneau, please.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): To give you some background, let me remind you that we are dealing with the conclusions of our exchange with the representatives of the departments of the Environment and Defence and the residents' group.

There are two main ideas in our proposal, which has five points, namely a moratorium and a widening of the study to cover certain aspects not originally mentioned.

I'll read you the text we prepared and we can then examine it more closely.

-That the Committee demand an immediate moratorium on the firing trials at the Nicolet Proof and Experimental Test Establishment on Lake Saint-Pierre;

-That the aforementioned moratorium remain in effect until such time as the results of the impact study by Environment Canada and the Department of National Defence are made available to the public;

-That the impact study to be carried out by Environment Canada and the Department of National Defence be expanded to include a study on the human and social impacts, as well as biodiversity;

-That the time allotted for the study be reconsidered and shortened if possible;

-That the Chair forward this motion to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of the Environment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): I've already discussed my reservations with Mr. Charbonneau and other colleagues. I can understand somewhat the hesitation of the Department of Defence when faced with an immediate moratorium since it is bound by contract to carry out certain obligations. It would be very difficult for the department to stop its activities from one day to the next.

I'd like to move an amendment to the effect that the committee demand a moratorium starting January 1st, 2000.

The Chairman: Do you agree?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

The Chairman: Are you ready to adopt the amendment and the motion?

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Could we first have a brief debate?

The Chairman: I'd prefer your comments to be short and to the point so that our witnesses are not inconvenienced.

• 1540

Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Am I to assume that this amendment is moved following representations from the Department of Defence? In spite of the Environment Committee's carefully considered decision, this is an attempt to bring about a very significant compromise.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: No, that is not so. I give you my word, Mr. Rocheleau, there was no intervention on the part of the department. I informed my colleague from Defence, without indicating a precise date, that I would be moving an extension of the deadline. Following discussions with Mr. Charbonneau, we realized that the department was bound to fulfil contractual obligations and that it would be impossible to impose a moratorium from one day to the next.

You may wish to suggest something else or shorten the deadline but I can assure you that I have made no commitment to the Department of National Defence. None at all. I give you my word. The parliamentary secretary through the Minister of Defence can confirm what I am saying. He did not know the date that I was going to suggest. I did not tell him that I was going to be moving an extension because I realized that this motion ran the risk of being rejected if the timetable was unreasonable. We agreed that it would be very difficult to bring activities of this scope to an immediate stop. If you do not agree with this January 1 deadline and you wish to make another amendment, please do so.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In order to respond to Mr. Rocheleau's concern, I would request him, as well as anyone else who is interested, to read the full transcription of the remarks that we made at the last meeting. You will note that the term “immediate” was not one I used.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Bertrand, please, very briefly.

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I'm afraid that the deadline of January 1, 2000 does not give the Department of Defence enough time to put an end to its operations. Unfortunately, for this and many other reasons I shall be obliged to oppose this motion.

The Nicolet and Lake Saint-Pierre regions were chosen for a very precise reason. You may remember, Mr. Rocheleau, that during the briefing it was explained to us that this region, with Quebec City and Sorel, forms an almost perfect triangle. As we know, SNC- Lavalin is established in Sorel where it manufactures ammunition.

I'd also like to stress the economic impact that this moratorium would have on the region. If my memory serves me right, this experimental test establishment injects $5 million a year in the local economy and accounts for approximately 40 jobs. I don't know whether the people in the region would agree to having these tests stopped immediately or in the year 2000.

It is also important to note that the Department of National Defence does not use these sites only to conduct random firing. These tests are for a specific purpose, they are to test ammunition, Mr. Chairman. When we send our peacekeepers—

The Chairman: We heard all these arguments at the last meeting.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: No, Mr. Chairman, but—

The Chairman: We've already examined this matter for three hours.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Before people make a decision, it is important—

The Chairman: I gave you the floor so that you could make some brief comments on the motion.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Before adopting such an important motion, I think it is important to listen to—

The Chairman: Mr. Bertrand, I'm sorry, but I cannot allow you to start enumerating all the reasons that we heard at our last meeting. But if you would like to briefly conclude your comments, please do so.

• 1545

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to emphasize the importance of testing the ammunition and weapons used by our peacekeepers in missions in Bosnia Herzegovina or Kosovo to ensure that they work properly if ever they are needed.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bertrand.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Charbonneau, briefly, please.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I'd like to briefly repeat two or three points for the intention of those who may not have been present at the last committee meeting. In the notes taken at this meeting on the 6th of May, it is recorded that Mr. Hunter, speaking on behalf of the Department of Defence, stated that at the present time at least half a dozen employees were carrying out such tests and this number would soon be reduced to three or four. This comment was made at the end of his testimony. Two or three pages before the end of his testimony, in answer to a question from Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Hunter thanked him sincerely and indicated that his request had been quite clear. He said:

[English]

I've already indicated that we will continue to aggressively look for alternatives to move our workload away from Lac Saint-Pierre.

[Translation]

The department has already taken steps to this effect and will continue them very actively with a view to finding other solutions.

On four other occasions Mr. Hunter mentioned that the number of tests on this lake had already been greatly reduced and that he would keep on looking for ways of bringing about an even greater reduction.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau. Briefly, Mr. Bertrand.

Mr. Robert Bertrand: Mr. Charbonneau is right when he says that only five or six employees of the Department of National Defence are working at this experimental test centre. The 40 employees that I referred to are contract employees hired by the Department of National Defence and SCN-Lavalin.

The Chairman: Thank you for that very useful clarification, Mr. Bertrand.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

(The motion as amended is carried on division)

[English]

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chairman: I took it as a friendly amendment, and therefore it is not necessary that it be handled twice.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I apologize.

The Chairman: Before introducing the witnesses, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the clerk has now received a sufficient number of copies of the 1998 annual report of Ballard Power Systems. This report will be sent to you by the clerk today, or tomorrow at the latest. You saw a copy already last week.

You were urged last week to include a visit to that corporation the next time you visit the west, because of the considerable technological step forward it is making in the production of emission-free stationary as well as combustion equipment. It is a remarkable feat, which deserves the full attention of parliamentarians.

• 1550

When your office receives that publication it won't be accompanied by a covering note, so I'm taking the liberty of again drawing your attention to the fact that it will be in your mail and urging you to include this particular plant in your next visit out west. Of course, should the committee be going west in the foreseeable future, we'll make every possible effort to include it if we go to Vancouver.

Having said that, again I welcome the commissioner, Mr. Emmett, and his officials. They are here on chapter 22 of the Auditor General's report, which is entitled “Federal Contaminated Sites—Management Information on Environmental Costs and Liabilities”. It is a subject matter that has already been touched on once by this committee, and we are revisiting it as part of a series of examinations preceding the study we are launching at the beginning of January on the pesticide management system.

Mr. Emmett, would you like to introduce your colleagues and take the floor.

Mr. Brian Emmett (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): I'm Brian Emmett. With me from my office are Wayne Cluskey and Dan Rubenstein.

The Chairman: Also with us are Mr. Winberg from the Treasury Board and Mr. Guimont from Environment Canada. Perhaps you would like to introduce your respective colleagues, Mr. Winberg and Mr. Guimont.

Mr. François Guimont (Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada): I have with me, Mr. Chairman, Gordon Owen, who is responsible for the contaminated sites unit in the DOE, and Jean Bilodeau, who is the director general of our administrative program in DOE. But there are also other colleagues from sector departments: Hiram Beaubier, Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Madam Ginger Stones, from DND; and Mr. Forster, from Transport. Those are the people who are with me.

I'll let Mr. Winberg introduce his people as well.

Mr. Alan Winberg (Assistant Secretary, Risk, Procurement and Asset Management Policy Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat): Deborah Olver, the director of the real property management division, is with me.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Would you now like to proceed in the same order, Mr. Emmett first, followed by whoever decides to follow him? You have ten minutes each.

Mr. Brian Emmett: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be quite brief.

First, I welcome this opportunity to meet the committee to discuss the management of federal contaminated sites.

[Translation]

Contaminated sites can lead to contamination of ground water, they can take valuable land out of more productive use and they can threaten human and environmental health. They can also lead to potentially significant financial liabilities for the government. First, the government will ultimately have to come up with the money to discharge these liabilities by either remediating or otherwise managing the risks posed by these sites. Further, the ability to develop a comprehensive and credible estimate is a good test of wether the government is really serious about managing its portfolio of contaminated sites, thereby preventing future contamination of federal land.

This is not a new problem. The government has known for at least a decade that it has a serious problem that requires a comprehensive solution. The first and critical step in implementing such a comprehensive solution was the creation of a complete inventory of federal contaminated sites. The government recognized this need as part of the national contaminated sites remediation program. Environment Canada started to compile an inventory of federal sites. In 1993, our office reported that the initial list of some potentially 1,200 contaminated sites was incomplete.

• 1555

[English]

Ten years after the start of the national contaminated site remediation program, the federal government still does not have a complete picture of the potential risk to health, safety, and the environment associated with its approximately 5,000 contaminated sites. As a result, it is unable to assure Parliament and the people of Canada that it can address these risks. It also does not have an accurate picture of related financial liabilities.

An underlying reason for this, in our view, is the way the government has chosen to manage its contaminated sites. In our view, the federal contaminated sites should be managed as a whole, that is, the government should establish priorities for action beginning with the most hazardous sites first and then proceeding to relatively less problematic areas. The government has chosen to disagree with this approach, as it has a perfect right to do. It argues that each department has the responsibility to manage its own sites as part of a department's overall mandate.

While I understand the basis for this approach, the practical result is fragmentation. This means that the contaminated sites policy is captive to each department's priorities, level of interest, expertise, and budget. Furthermore, it does not guarantee that the worst problems are dealt with first and that we have an optimal solution, given the amount of money we have to spend. What is missing here is the sustained central leadership necessary to ensure that individual departments work with the same set of priorities and the same timetable.

[Translation]

At the hearings held by this committee on 17 February 1998, Environment Canada described its previous work with the national contaminated sites remediation program and its involvement with interdepartmental working groups. The Treasury Board Secretariat described the board's commitment to implement an accounting policy that, if followed, could result in a consolidated estimate of the government's environmental costs and liabilities, as at 31 March 1999. Clearly, these are worthwhile initiatives. Today, there are no commitments to provide the sustained, central leadership necessary to develop a coherent and consistent government-wide approach to managing federal contaminated sites.

[English]

In December 1998 I reported the results of my follow-up work on the initial recommendations of chapter 22, which you mentioned in your introduction, Mr. Chairman. The follow-up chapter reported that during the months subsequent to your committee's hearing on the management of federal contaminated sites, the required central leadership had not been forthcoming from either Environment Canada or Treasury Board Secretariat. The government continued to be unwilling to develop and implement a government-wide timetable. No one organization believed it had overall accountability for providing the central direction required to establish a government-wide timetable that had any real teeth. A comprehensive environmental policy had yet to be implemented in a consistent way across government. Minimum standards of due diligence had yet to be defined and put into use across all departments.

There was, however, some sign of movement on the central leadership issue. The Treasury Board Secretariat, in its official response to the follow-up work, made a commitment to effective government-wide management of all aspects of real property, including contaminated sites. At the completion of our work, what remained to be seen was how this commitment would be translated into sustained central leadership required to solve the problem of the management of federal contaminated sites.

Today, after a decade of intermittent and fragmented effort, Canada's largest landlord is still far from being able to provide Canadians with a clear, unambiguous statement on when all the potential risks to health, safety, and the environment posed by federal contaminated sites will be properly managed.

But this problem is solvable. There is broad agreement about what is to be done and the final desired outcomes. The techniques and the tools are well established. What remains to be seen is the central leadership necessary to develop a consistent government-wide approach to contaminated sites.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1600

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Emmett. There's a ray of hope in your final paragraphs.

Who would like to be the next speaker? Mr. Guimont.

[Translation]

Mr. François Guimont: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The text of my presentation was given to the committee clerk and since I have already introduced the people accompanying me today, I'll skip certain paragraphs.

It is a pleasure for us to appear again before your committee to discuss the issue of federal contaminated sites. This is an issue of importance to us both from the point of view of our obligation to the well-being of Canadian society as a whole and the federal government's responsibility as a good manager of its resources.

We have made some notable progress on this issue since our last appearance before you and we look forward to sharing that progress with you.

As you will have noted, this opening statement is a joint statement on behalf of both Environment Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat. As I will explain in a few minutes, the two departments have been working very closely on this issue and it seemed appropriate that we reflect this co-operation in a joint statement.

[English]

We will restrict our comments to the issue of federal contaminated sites. Although we have broad social and health interests in non-federal sites, the majority of them fall under the purview of the provinces, which have regulatory regimes in place to cover them. The initiatives that we have already completed and that we are putting in place demonstrate our concern about the environment. We, being Environment Canada and the Treasury Board, are providing central leadership on contaminated sites. With representatives of custodial departments we are working closely together to put in place the administrative infrastructure necessary to deal with the issue.

I would like also to assure members that the federal government cares about the environment and has a strong commitment to the management of environmental issues. The government has had this concern for a long time. For example, as members may recall, 1989 saw the establishment of a five-year $250 million federal-provincial national contaminated sites remediation program. This was a successful program that developed new technical and administrative tools and remediated so-called orphan sites. An orphan site is a contaminated site for which the responsible party has not been identified. The results were considerable and are still with us today. This program produced four key successes, and I would like to point out to the committee what they are.

The program resulted in 45 orphan sites and 18 federal sites remediated, the demonstration of 50 new technologies, the development of soil quality guidelines, and also the elaboration of the national contaminated sites system for contaminated sites.

In addition, in 1995 the federal government approved a coordinated approach on the greening of the government operation. This approach committed federal organizations to address contaminated lands within their environmental management system and departmental sustainable development strategies. At present the remediation of federal contaminated sites may or may not require an environmental assessment.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will shortly be proposing amendments to its inclusion list, after which remediation of contaminated sites will be considered a project and will automatically trigger an environmental assessment. These programs have established a base for the work that has followed and that will be undertaken. Let me now discuss some of the more current initiatives.

Since its inception four years ago, the contaminated sites management working group has effectively advanced this important subject area. This group is an interdepartmental body that was created to develop a common approach to the management of contaminated sites under federal custody and as well to provide expert advice on these issues.

This committee comprises 15 federal departments that have responsibility for most of the federal real property. As part of our commitment to provide the required leadership for this work, DOE has recreated a small unit dedicated to this issue and we have agreed to co-chair the working group. Treasury Board Secretariat has become an active member of the working group and, along with all other members, is supporting it financially. We note also that the other co-chair is from the Department of National Defence, a department with significant expertise in the effective and positive management of contaminated sites.

I will now turn over the floor to Alan Winberg, who will continue our joint statement.

The Chairman: Before we do that, Mr. Guimont, since you make a reference to 1989 and the allocation of $250 million over the next five years, and you don't make any reference to a renewal of that program in your subsequent points, can you inform the committee whether there is money allocation at the present time to national contaminated sites remediation programs?

• 1605

Mr. François Guimont: Do you want me to do this now, chairman?

The Chairman: I thought you would complete with a comment indicating to the committee what is in the cupboard and what is not.

Mr. François Guimont: Essentially what we have right now is a situation where responsible custodial departments have within their operation resources set aside to take remediation action based on assessment they carry out. DOE is part of that.

On top of this, in DOE we have put together a unit—Mr. Gordon Owen is responsible for that group—and we have five or six people who are now providing leadership within DOE, in conjunction with Treasury Board, to reactivate the work on contaminated sites and carry out further work. But besides that, resources in line with what the program was back between 1989 and 1995 do not exist any more, so the program has not been re-created. That program subsided actually not in 1995, but in 1996. There were an extra 12 months of the program carried through as a result of some resources still being available and being ready for consumption for sites, as per the program design.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Guimont.

Mr. Winberg, please.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Part of my opening statement does touch on that issue, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Let me expand somewhat on the recent initiatives of the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group.

[English]

In November 1998 the working group sponsored a very successful interdepartmental workshop for 100 participants. That workshop covered such subjects as legal issues and due diligence, contractural aspects of remediation, new tools being developed, such as the use of plants to remove pollutants in soil, and approaches to risk management and risk assessment.

Mr. Chairman, you may recall this meeting, as you participated as the opening speaker.

The working group has established a website, which contains copies of its publications, various technical tools, and other reference materials. This site reflects its objectives and serves as an information source for managers who are dealing with contaminated sites.

A subcommittee of the contaminated sites working group has recently finished a first draft of a glossary of terms related to contaminated sites. This glossary is expected to be posted on the committee's website when completed.

[Translation]

Another subcommittee is in the final draft stages of developing a guideline document on contaminated sites. This guideline document will contain 10 steps for addressing contaminated sites, a sample statement of work for use in hiring expert contractors and advice on risk assessment and management. This document is expected to be released this fall.

[English]

In addition to the work that is being done through the contaminated sites management working group, Treasury Board Secretariat has issued a draft policy on accounting for costs and liabilities related to contaminated sites. This policy is designed to ensure that the costs related to the management and remediation of contaminated sites for which the Government of Canada has ongoing responsibility are accounted for and accurately reported in the government's financial statements. As a preliminary step, departments have recently been asked to provide cost estimates based on the draft policy.

[Translation]

For the future, it is recognized that what is needed is a comprehensive contaminated sites management framework. TBS and Environment Canada are planning to develop such a framework in close consultation with custodian departments.

[English]

While still in the conceptual stage, the elements of such a framework would likely include an overall policy for the management of federal contaminated sites, as well as a supporting policy suite. Our current thinking is that the policy suite would contain requirements for the preparation of management plans, the establishment of a central inventory of sites, as well as the technical requirements for such an inventory, factors for consideration regarding the appropriate level of remediation, and risk management considerations.

• 1610

We would also like to point out that custodial departments have been actively pursuing solutions to contaminated sites. Under the federal real property regime, custodial departments are responsible for all aspects of the management of their property, including the environmental aspects. To the extent that funds are available, in general, departments are making progress in this area. According to a recent analysis, average spending for contaminated sites has been over $90 million per year over the last three years. A 1996 review estimated that in recent years federal departments have remediated 800 mostly small sites, and that work is under way on another 150 sites.

[Translation]

This level of activity has been recognized by others. I note that in evidence before this committee in February 1998, the Office of the Auditor General observed that “on a departmental level, things seem to be operating reasonably well, consistent with best practices we have observed elsewhere”.

[English]

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the activities related to the management of federal contaminated sites have been considerable, they're expanding, and we can look forward to further improvement.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll be happy to answer your questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Winberg.

Are there further speakers?

The others are silent. No one wishes to speak? Transport has nothing to say? Indian and Northern Affairs, no comment? Fantastic.

[Translation]

Mr. Casson, please.

[English]

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are a couple of points I'd like to raise and then maybe ask a question. You initially say that 1989 saw the establishment of the five-year, $250 million program, and that program cleaned up 45 orphan sites, 18 federal sites, demonstrated some technologies, and developed.... But then on the back page you say that a 1996 review estimated that in recent years federal departments had remediated 800 sites. Are these things the same programs? What are we talking about here?

Mr. François Guimont: They're not the same programs, but they're the same topic. I'll explain myself.

The national contaminated sites remediation program back in 1989 essentially was put together following CCME discussions. CCME stands for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and that's a federal-provincial committee. The reason for this is that collectively jurisdictions felt they were facing a problem with contaminated sites, largely orphan sites, actually. They said maybe we should do something about this, and the program was put together. So dollars were put forward, $250 million, a quarter of a billion, parameters were developed as to what would be the components of the program and which sites would be selected and how they would be cleaned up. This is how we ended up with a priority on orphan sites.

We also had a federal component. If I remember, it was in the order of $50 million. Essentially we ended up with 18 federal sites also cleaned up.

A lot of emphasis was put on technology development, technologies to clean up these sites. If you cast your mind back, 1989 is not that long ago, yet sites are fairly unique compared with one another, and technologies needed to be developed on a demonstration basis with a view to being used on other sites with similar characteristics.

So a big result of that program was the new technologies, as well as soil quality guidelines: How clean is clean? What do we mean? Will jurisdictions have different standards? So the program served to develop a lot of those basic tools, which we today are using in carrying out our responsibilities from a federal perspective. And in all fairness, the provinces are most likely using the same tools.

I would make two last points on this, Mr. Chairman. We could provide the committee with some of that information. If I remember, reports were produced as the program was unfolding, and that information may be of use to some of the members. So I'll just set that aside for the time being.

• 1615

The points made by my colleague Mr. Winberg have to do with the actions today. So the program has now ceased. By that I mean it was between 1989 and 1995, with 12 more months, as I explained before. The dollars were consumed. The products are there to be observed if you wish, both in terms of the tools and the actual sites that were decontaminated. The statistics that were provided by Mr. Winberg have to do with the level of activity since 1996.

The point was that from 1996 up until now, a federal average of $90 million per year was put forward by various departments responsible for their own sites, but collectively, if you sum up their individual actions—being Transport, Public Works, DND, ourselves—those equate to $90 million. What that has given us up to now is 80 sites, not only small but smaller sites being cleaned up. There's current work for 150 of them ongoing, and we speak right now.

So the program existed. That's done. Statistics provided by Mr. Winberg have to do more with the recent past, if you wish, between 1996 and right now.

Mr. Rick Casson: How do you define a small site? Help me out here. I'm not sure what....

Mr. François Guimont: I'll give you a fairly small one from our perspective, and I'll let our colleagues from either DND or Transport who are here with us today give you further examples of how they define “small” in their own area of responsibility.

In the case of DOE, to put things in perspective, a small site is us moving for our hydrometric network, so water-stream gauging, from so-called mercury switches to new types of switches, and in some cases there was a bit of contamination. So it's a fairly small metal box next to a stream, with a bit of equipment inside. The mercury switch per se is fairly small, as you can imagine. In some cases there's no contamination, but the only way to know is to go and look.

The point I'm making here is that we're talking about a fairly small building with a fairly small surface area. In the DOE's view of what “small” would be, that's probably as small as one can make it.

I would maybe turn to our colleagues from either DND or Transport to give their perspective.

Mr. John Forster (Director General, Environmental Affairs, Transport Canada): As an example of a small site from Transport's perspective, we're privatizing the navigation system, and with that goes the air navigation system and 800 small navigation beacons that run on a generator fuelled by diesel fuel, and those tank leaks contaminate the sites. Out of those 800 properties, we have probably 111. We've spent $11 million on assessing all those. We have 100 sites where we'll spend another $20 million or $30 million over the next few years to clean them up before we transfer them. So those would be very small sites, with the contamination from leaking fuel tanks.

An example of a bigger site would be one you have in your backyard out by the Ottawa airport. It was an old landfill site and a chemical waste dump that the feds and the City of Gloucester used. We cleaned up the water. We've put in a treatment plant. We've now spent about $1 million a year operating that and we will for the next ten years, to clean up that site so that the groundwater is safe.

For us, that would be kind of the difference between those.

Mr. Alan Winberg: It might be helpful to hear the DND perspective on this as well.

Ms. Ginger Stones (Director, Environmental Protection, Department of National Defence): For DND, we've done both small and large cleanups over the last few years.

A small cleanup would be a fuel storage tank cleanup or a fuel spill that was basically limited in size.

As for larger cleanups, we've undertaken to begin the DEW Line cleanup across the north. That's a $300-million cleanup project over about 10 to 12 years. We also had a major cleanup of lead-contaminated soil at Long Point in Montreal. That has been completed, and that cost $30 million.

DND has a very active program that we put in place in 1995, starting to identify our sites and to get on with cleaning them up and risk managing them. We spend approximately $30 million a year in our contaminated sites program. We follow the CCME criteria, and a priority for us is the potential risk to human health.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson. We can come back to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Lincoln followed by Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I heard Mr. Winberg tell us that everything seemed to be operating reasonably well.

[English]

but it seems to be contradicted by the report of the commissioner. I think the fundamental issue the commissioner has with the government is that the government continues to disagree with their office over the need for a government-wide action plan and timetable to complete the identification, assessment, and remediation of all federal contaminated sites. Particularly, it's the high-risk sites.

• 1620

The Treasury Board says they'll leave it to each department and they expect each one to be in a position to report the liabilities defined in their draft accounting policy as of March 31, 1999, which is past.

From what I read of the Auditor General's report, from ten departments managing contaminated sites, three out of the ten cannot meet the Treasury Board deadline. So we don't know when they are going to meet the deadline. It doesn't say. One mentioned that it needed a four- to five-year timeframe to properly identify, assess, and cost the remediation of its contaminated sites. It doesn't say which department that is. And four departments needed more guidance with regard to the nature and extent of the required reporting data before setting up systems to implement the policy. And that adds up to eight. I don't know what happened to the other two.

And the Auditor General goes on to say:

The source of funds to identify, assess and cost the remediation for all sites, as required by the draft accounting policy, was another major concern.

My question is not about the small sites where you have some oil or gas that seeped onto a beacon site; you have lots of those. I understand that DND has cleaned up Long Point and it has started to clean up the DEW Line, which is a big step forward. We have to acknowledge and admit that it's a big step forward.

What about the other high-risk sites that are left today? Mr. Emmett, do you still feel after listening and speaking to the department that we definitely need a settled coordination point to tackle the high-risk sites? Secondly, what happens to the responses you had from eight of these ten departments that say they can't meet the Treasury Board deadline or they don't have enough information to set up systems or it takes them four or five years to do it? Do you follow up on those? And what is your assessment of these responses?

I'd like to get Mr. Emmett's opinion, please.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Do I still believe, on having heard Mr. Winberg's and Mr. Guimont's introduction...? Yes, I do. I would very much like to see the Government of Canada assemble an inventory on a consistent basis of all the sites they are responsible for to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. The inventory should be ranked on the basis of risk and it should present an action plan with milestones and resources and so on. The Government of Canada could work through that list from the worst downwards, from the most dangerous and riskiest sites downwards in order to carry out their responsibilities to protect the health and safety of Canadians. I believe that's still a sound proposition.

When you look in the chapter from 1996 when we talked to the large firms that have many divisions, they generally tend to manage their contaminated sites as a corporation, as opposed to on a division-by-division basis. That is the way they make the best use of the resources available for that. That is the best way to make use of taxpayer resources that are available to protect the health and the environment of Canadians.

• 1625

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What kind of follow-up do you do in regard to the departments that say to you that they don't have enough information now to comply with the Treasury Board guidelines, or it will take four or five years, etc.? There are eight you have reported on and two you haven't.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Normally we would do a full report, say in 1996, and we'd do a follow-up two years later. Often at that point we will close that file and move on to another topic. Sometimes it's our outstanding issues that need to be followed up again. We will come back, let's say, in the year 2000 and present to Parliament a further follow-up report. That's certainly a possibility in a case like this.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Admittedly, there are a lot of small sites, which you admit yourselves are the easier ones. DND explained that they tackled two big sites, which we all acknowledge were very bad sites, but there were others left in the landscape. The other week we talked about the top ones. And today we had evidence at the forum here that some families are living in a terrible state, with toxic waste seeping into their basement. It's just a mess.

Even in your report, Mr. Guimont, you acknowledge somewhere that it will take hundreds of millions of dollars just for the top ones alone. So when we talk about $90 million a year among 10 departments, that's $9 million a year per department if you average it out. So when you talk about the top ones alone, it's just many hundreds of millions of dollars.

How do we tackle this without a prompt assessment of the worst sites, number one? And number two, how do we tackle the ones where firms are still in the landscape? They declare bankruptcy or possible bankruptcy and leave another headache for us. While we are patching one hole, another one starts up.

I'm talking about Giant Yellowknife Mine, which is admittedly seeping arsenic. The people are declaring bankruptcy or they are about to, and the owners are perhaps all in the United States or very hard to get hold of. We get left holding the bag. It would seem to me that after all these years we would have found a way of preventing this kind of stuff by asking for huge bonds or something.

So could you address these two things? First of all, what do we do about the huge sites that are going to take hundreds of millions of dollars? Number two is the large mines and businesses that declare bankruptcy and leave us. In this case it will become a federal site, because it's in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. François Guimont: I will start and then I will look to my colleague Mr. Winberg to pick up. Then I'll turn it to Mr. Beaubier to say a few words about Giant Yellowknife Mines, which is a very relevant issue, in all fairness.

On big sites, I would start by saying that we don't personally disagree with Mr. Emmett when he says at the beginning that a good, solid, clean inventory is critical, and we are working at that. It starts there, and we're there. And the inventory cannot just be left to single departments. I agree with the commissioner. We should be able to step back and look at the full picture.

A good inventory allows you to say this is small, this is medium, and this has been done, and this is very big. So we end up where you are, Mr. Lincoln. What do we do with our big sites?

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: With costing...?

Mr. François Guimont: I start by saying a good inventory. Then you ask what is it we know and don't know about those sites. For the small sites it's fairly easy—easy in the sense that you carry out a fairly quick assessment. It's a small site. The bigger ones, obviously, are more complex, and that's the point I want to make. It's not just about money. It's about how to go about it as well. I'll explain myself.

Big sites are very often complex sites. We're learning that in Sydney. I don't know much about Giant Yellowknife Mines, but it's probably a bit of the same thing. Sometimes we find multiple sources of pollution or contamination, and it's not obvious that a single technique or a single approach will fix the problem.

I'm not saying it is systematic that all big sites are automatically complex in terms of decontamination, but quite often there will be a relationship between the two issues.

• 1630

The other point I would make on the bigger sites is one of time. A lot of the bigger sites speak to an incremental approach, both in terms of technology and what I would call an investment pattern. What I mean by this is a big site will take years to clean. We've had those discussions between departments. On a big site, you could talk about 10 years or 15 years. If it's done correctly, nobody should be too worried about it.

Everybody would like to see it done quickly. When we came before the committee last time, a member spoke about feeding the elephant chunk by chunk. For the bigger sites, it's probably very true as well. So the point I'm trying to convey here is certainly one of an inventory. The inventory then allows you to move to a careful assessment.

The assessment informs you about how to go about chunking down the site, where to start, how to go about things, what technologies to use and how much time it will take you. Certainly for bigger sites, all that speaks to a fairly lengthy period of time to get to the end of it. That should not discourage anybody as long as you can start somewhere.

I will perhaps let my colleague Alan continue, and then Mr. Beaubier.

Mr. Alan Winberg: First, I completely agree with what Mr. Guimont just said. The only thing I would add with regard to this inventory is that we have recognized the need for the sound management of federal real property, including all the environmental aspects.

A key element of our move to improve that management is to put in place what we call a directory of federal real property, which is an Internet-based system that would contain basic information on all our federal property. We would look to that initiative to ensure sound and accurate information in that inventory. We would look to that initiative to build in the issues related to the inventory of contaminated sites, especially using the information we have gained through the development of the national classification system for contaminated sites.

So we agree completely on that point. We agree with the commissioner that this inventory is necessary, and we're taking steps to put in place that inventory in a sound and practical way.

I'll pass it over now to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. Hiram Beaubier (Director General, Natural Resources and Environment Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Alan.

Mr. Chairman, my response is relative to the questions on Giant Yellowknife Mines. I think Mr. Lincoln was asking how we avoid these problems in the future. The dealings we're facing now, both in Yukon and the Northwest Territories, with respect to abandoned mines and mines that are in the final stages of going through bankruptcy and receivership are by and large of an historic nature.

I would agree that one of the ways in which we need to address this for the future is to make sure that operations undertaken in the north and elsewhere are fully bonded and fully funded, so there's a sufficient reserve to be able to deal with any residual cleanups. We also need to look at the aspects of the ongoing work of a remedial nature as the mines and properties are being developed, so that we're not left with a large mess at the end. That shift in the policy and practice within the department is under way.

At Giant Yellowknife Mines there is a large issue with respect to arsenic. The property is still under court protection with respect to the receiver. There are restructuring plans under way with respect to the broad holdings of the Royal Oak Corporation. We are quite active in that, and it's our intent to make sure there's as much attention to the liability of that property as there is to the assets. So we're going to try to structure a deal that makes sure there is a private sector solution to the degree possible in dealing with the arsenic problem and its management.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for appearing.

There are many questions that come to my mind. I am familiar with the comments of the Auditor and the December 1998 report. Everyone seemed very positive but I realize that the situation is not so positive. In the Auditor's report, it is noted that all the problems raised in the previous reports do not seem to have been settled, that there is still not a detailed plan for risk management and costs associated with contaminated sites, there is no access to information relating to the risks both for health and environmental security and there is still no full picture of possible liabilities nor a national plan to deal with problems relating to contaminated sites. The Auditor also notes that the government has still not given any priority to a central timetable for the inventory and assessment of contaminated sites.

• 1635

I have listened to your fine presentations but your statements go against the observations of the Auditor who claims that you have not responded to the previous report. Mr. Guimont mentioned the National Contaminated Sites Remediation Program with a budget envelope of $250 million but this amount has been used to decontaminate only 300 sites out of the 5,000 contaminated sites we have been told exist in Canada. There is a good deal of talk but there is no timetable and the sites have not been listed.

In his presentation, Mr. Winberg said:

For the future, it is recognized that what is needed is a comprehensive contaminated sites management framework. TBS and Environment Canada are planning to develop such a framework in close consultation with custodian departments.

When will they do this? You tell us that it is still at the design stage. It seems to me this design is taking a long time in coming. Have you established precise timetables for the development of this framework? I'd like to have some clarifications.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Gladly. The study goes back to 1996 whereas the working group was set up in 1998. In my opening statement I described what we are doing. It is our estimate that we will require about two years to implement this framework and develop the necessary policies for going ahead with it.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: In two years, you won't be able to do more than design this framework?

Mr. Alan Winberg: In view of the base that we possess and the good work done by the working group, we believe that we will be able to begin implementing certain components of this framework as of now and complete its implementation within two years.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Guimont, why did you not renew this program that you consider to be so wonderful and that performed so well? Is it because of lack of funding or will that you are not still forging ahead with this extraordinary initiative but have decided to go backwards? Why stop in the middle of such good work?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, this program concluded after six years of activities, in other words quite a substantial period. Its purpose was to demonstrate that decontamination was possible, to develop tools and new technologies and to form partnerships with the provinces so that they also could develop a certain infrastructure to deal with their own problems.

This matter affects not only federal sites but also certain provincial sites in different municipalities. Once this program was ended, we attempted to go from a federal-provincial approach to a federal approach in dealing with our federal sites. That, to some extent, is the reason why this program operated so well, that it was so successful and fulfilled our expectations. We wish to build on our achievements and settle our federal problems in the same way the provinces have been successful in solving and managing their problems with contaminated sites.

So this is the context in which we are developing the framework described by Mr. Winberg. We are convinced that the framework approach we are developing will definitely meet the expectations and recommendations of the Commissioner.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Commissioner, could you provide us with some clarifications? I remain very sceptical. We are told that tools have been developed and results obtained but that we will still have to wait another two years before something new comes up. It was my assumption that when tools were available, then work could be done. Are the 5,000 federal sites not yet listed? Do we already have a draft indicating where the sites are located and the extent of their contamination?

• 1640

Mr. Alan Winberg: We already have a tool in place, that is the list of federal real estate; it works well although it does not contain all the elements necessary to provide us with an inventory of contaminated sites. We are ready to begin improving this tool so that we can include the information relating to contaminated federal sites. It may require some years to have a complete list with all the sites but I think that we can make immediate and substantial progress, particularly with respect to the sites that are known and that are part of the first category of our system, that is the most contaminated sites, either large or small. These sites would be the first to be listed on the inventory. We will have to take practical and efficient measures to build this system and give ourselves the time we need.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: How contaminated is the Lachine canal?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, the Lachine canal is considered to be a substantially contaminated site.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Have you started doing something?

Mr. François Guimont: This work must be done in co-operation with officials from Heritage Canada, who unfortunately are not present here today. That is part of the responsibilities of the Department. We have already carried out assessments and set up an environmental commission. Experts have looked into the matter and recommendations have been made. I believe that additional work remains to be done and that we must also take into account the fact that the master plan for the Lachine canal provides for the possibility of opening the locks to navigation. Before this is done, Heritage Canada would like to have a good understanding of the impact that this opening to navigation would have on the sediments.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I can tell you that. It is very dangerous.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte, followed by the chair, and then a second round.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I'd ask the commissioner.... We use government departments readily, and I understand those responsibilities, but how about the crown corporations or past corporations that have been created under the federal auspices? What happens there? What's the extent? Is that documented?

Mr. Brian Emmett: It is not covered in our report. The Auditor General relates to crown corporations under a different part of his mandate. They're not included among the departments you see here. The Auditor General does do, every five years, a comprehensive examination of crown corporations and submits that to the board of directors of the crown.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So when you recommend a consistent government-wide approach to be coherent, you're envisioning that those sites, other than departmental, be included in that comprehensive list or—

Mr. Brian Emmett: No, I think our horizon here is limited by those things that are directly in the mandate of departments.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay. I'll move on to another one.

The DEW Line, under DND, is more concentrated in the farther north than north-of-60 sites, but there are some sites that have been established around the 55th parallel, and those are abandoned sites now as well. The U.S. sites may not have been involved, but certainly there are Canadian military sites there. Are those under the inventory list as well, or is there any plan to clean up those sites? They're pretty extensive throughout central Canada.

Ms. Ginger Stones: We have a plan. We're starting the assessment of the mid-Canada line sites. I'll double check that it's the one at the 55. We have a number of sites that we have identified in Ontario and in Quebec. We have an agreement with the Province of Quebec on the scope of cleanup with the sites in Quebec and we are negotiating the cleanup issues for the mid-Canada line sites in Ontario.

• 1645

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The other one I wanted to ask about was the radioactive sites, I believe, but again it stems from the crown corporation similar to the Sydney tar ponds. These are major blunders in our history that we need to address. I would certainly support what the commissioner's recommending—that some comprehensive central approach by the federal government take place. When the $250 million project was established, was that administered by Environment Canada?

Mr. François Guimont: It was federally and provincially managed. Mr. Owen will give you more details on that question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gordon Owen (Chief, Contaminated Sites Division, Environment Canada): The NCSRP was in fact administered by the federal Department of the Environment but it was under the direction of a committee under the CCME.

The Chairman: Could you put on record your name and title, Mr. Owen, for the record?

Mr. Gordon Owen: My name is Gordon Owen and I'm with the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is what I'm trying to envision, that CCME seems to play an administrative role in some functions and in some places is a policy-maker. It diminishes, in my view, the Environment Canada role. I'm dying to see some leadership from Environment Canada and for our minister and our federal government to take an environmental leadership role in this country.

I think the commissioner is asking that some comprehensive leadership take place in this country, and I think it points to Environment Canada. It's more of a statement. I don't think it's anything that anybody can answer to, but for the record that's what I'd state.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In certain letters from the President of Treasury Board, appended to the documents we have here, we note that Minister Massé states that it is still the government's view that responsibility for the management of contaminated sites continues to rest with the custodian departments.

The Environment Commissioner deplores this position. I'd like the representative of the Treasury Board to tell me what substantial arguments justify his rejection of the recommendations in favour of a more comprehensive and better integrated approach. Like everyone, I can read that you are not in agreement but I do not understand what disadvantages would be involved in adopting a more integrated approach, one that is better planned and more centralized.

It was claimed that if this responsibility was given to each department, we could no longer be sure that the money would be spent on dealing with the most serious problems. Since the seriousness of the problems may vary from one department to another, we would run the risk of wasting money on expenditures that are not really justified, although the Treasury Board must normally ensure that expenditures are justified and rational. Why would this not work? Why does it not make any sense in this particular case, in your view?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'd be happy to answer your question.

[English]

The Federal Real Property Act sets up a system in which the Treasury Board issues policies regarding the management of federal real property and then those policies are implemented by what we call custodial departments, departments that hold the land. This was an act passed by Parliament in the early 1990s, and it recognizes each minister's accountability for the operation of their department.

• 1650

By providing the leadership we've talked about with Environment Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat we believe it is the most practical way to put in place an effective regime for the cleanup of federal environmental contaminated sites. Most of our other federal real property policies run in this way, and the evidence is this is a practical system that runs well.

So the central leadership is coming from the Treasury Board Secretariat with regard to the management of federal real property. We issue these policies. We worry about the people and the calibre of people who are managing our federal real properties. We are putting in place initiatives to improve the information we have about those real properties, and in Treasury Board Secretariat we're running a centre of excellence for excellence in real property management.

Environment Canada, recognizing their expertise for matters regarding environment and especially contaminated sites.... We think the partnership we have for strategic leadership from the centre will be effective in the current federal real property regime, which respects the accountability of ministers and the provisions of the Federal Real Property Act.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Would the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tell us what trust he puts in this statement setting out the position of the representative of the Treasury Board? Does he see it as a precursor of happy developments or is it just another way of going round in circles?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I can understand the position expressed by Mr. Winberg. We are not challenging the decision taken by Parliament on the management of contaminated sites. We wonder how a decentralized system can be made to work efficiently, with the responsibility entrusted to each department. How can efficient standards be established, timetables set and good results obtained? We believe that a very strong coordination system is necessary to carry out this task and so far we have not had an adequate coordination system.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Charbonneau.

[English]

Before we start the second round, I have a few questions.

Could any one of you indicate to the committee where we are at with the tar pond in Halifax? What is being done there at the present time, if anything?

Mr. Gordon Owen: At this point in time the department is negotiating a cost share with provincial and municipal governments. As well, with respect to the use, which was raised before, the provincial government has taken samples and we are awaiting the results of those tests.

The Chairman: So what is your overall plan over the next...? Do you have a date of commencement? Do you have a date for completion? Do you have a budget? What are the details?

Mr. Gordon Owen: At this point in time the department is still moving ahead with the JAG in cooperation with the other partners. As the recommendations come out of the JAG they are then examined and would then be looked at by the municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

• 1655

The Chairman: Mr. Owen, this issue has been with us for the last 100 years almost. Can you indicate what priority your section is attributing to this? There has been discussion in this committee on this particular site. People in that area are very upset. There was a clipping yesterday to the effect that arsenic levels are at 49.9 parts per million in the soil on Frederick Street. This is from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Saturday, May 8. So something is demanding attention here. Can we get some indication as to what is being planned here with some element of urgency? Because one of these days this committee will travel.

Mr. François Guimont: If I may, Mr. Chairman, jump in with a view to answering the question more specifically, when the minister came on May 5, we had our regional director general also come along in order to make sure that should questions be asked on the issue of Sydney, our regional director general, who is the lead on the issue in the department, was right there fresh and able to give you answers to the questions. Unfortunately, he's not here today. I did mention to Mr. Owen to be as much up to speed as possible—

The Chairman: Yes, but we don't need a person in the department to know what is the policy and what is the plan. You can provide it for us too, can't you? If not, can you provide it in writing next week?

Mr. François Guimont: We could give you an update as to where we stand, yes, Mr. Chairman. I was going to conclude with that. I understand as well that you're going to be travelling to Sydney to see the site. I very gladly will ask the RDG, the regional director general, in Halifax to advise you in writing of the status, if you wish. Most likely, this will—

The Chairman: A status report is not enough. What we are asking for is an indication as to the priority you are giving that site in your overall priorities, the time you are predicting for the commencement, and also roughly the date of completion.

Mr. François Guimont: We'll get this information on a piece of paper, Mr. Chairman. I don't have that with me. I know a little bit, as I described earlier on, about major sites. Sydney is going to be a step-wise process with various levels of activities. It means that as we move, we're going to be reassessing where we are. That is the approach that is being proposed. But I'll get you the information.

The Chairman: Could you indicate to us, Mr. Guimont, whether you know of any other sites where levels of 49.9 parts per million of arsenic in the soil have been identified?

Mr. Gordon Owen: Not off the top of my head, sir.

The Chairman: Would you consider this serious, mild, or almost routine?

Mr. Gordon Owen: I would consider that it exceeds the standard.

The Chairman: To understand better what the score is on the role of the central leadership, in 1996 the Auditor General wrote in his report that there was a lack of central leadership and clear accountability. Today we hear from Mr. Emmett in paragraph 9 of his presentation that there is some sign of movement on the central leadership issue. Three years later one could say the elephant is moving, this is not bad.

Then we go to Mr. Guimont's presentation, which says:

For the future, it is recognized that what is needed is a comprehensive “Contaminated Sites Management Framework”.

You refer to TBS, and I assume you mean Treasury Board.

Mr. François Guimont: TBS is Treasury Board Secretariat.

The Chairman: Thank you. It continues:

TBS and Environment Canada are planning to develop such a framework in close consultation with custodian departments.

What does it mean? When is that going to happen?

Sorry, this is not Mr. Guimont. I apologize. This is Mr. Winberg speaking in the same script, so to speak.

Can you elaborate on that? There is movement. There is the development of a framework with consultation. You seem to be somehow agreeing now with the Auditor General that some central leadership is needed. You imply that between the lines. Can you reveal to us, the unwashed masses, what you are planning here in terms of time?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Yes. Recognizing the need for more attention to asset management and real property as well as some other issues, last summer the Treasury Board Secretariat created a new sector headed by an ADM to give more leadership in this area. That's my sector, and I was appointed to this position.

• 1700

The Chairman: And nobody suffered a hernia in the process.

Mr. Alan Winberg: When we looked at the issue of contaminated sites, we agreed with the need for additional attention. We immediately took action with Environment Canada to look at the most practical way to advance these issues in line with many of the comments the commissioner made.

The Chairman: Do you have in mind the speed of glaciers, or something faster?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Something faster, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Could you give us a date?

Mr. Alan Winberg: For what?

The Chairman: For—

Mr. Alan Winberg: The working group is quite active in terms of working on this issue. As discussed with the previous questioner, we think that over a two-year period we would put in place all the elements of this framework and policy sweep. In the opening statement we also discussed several documents and initiatives that are under way and are coming to fruition over the summer and would be released in the fall.

The Chairman: That's very helpful. Thank you.

Finally, with regard to the contaminated sites north of 60, from Iqaluit to Campbell River and other places, whose responsibility are they? Is it National Defence or Transport?

Mr. Hiram Beaubier: The responsibility will depend on the custodial assignment of the property to different departments. I would say that most of the sites are split between DND, which was charged with responsibility for the abandoned and closed down DEW Line sites, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is dealing with residual DEW Line sites that were assigned to us in the early 1960s and abandoned mines and exploration properties.

The Chairman: Could a list be provided to the members of this committee indicating which department is responsible for which site north of 60 and also which date of commencement for clean-up is anticipated? Is that possible?

Mr. Hiram Beaubier: Mr. Chairman, we could certainly undertake to try to pull that together. We have a fairly complete inventory with regard to the sites that are the charge of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I believe DND has a very complete site listing as well. I'm not entirely sure about Transport or the other departments, but we'll work with those to see if we can pull something together.

The Chairman: Will this indicate somehow the commencement and completion timeframe?

Mr. Hiram Beaubier: For those sites under which we have active programs slotted, we can do that.

The Chairman: You seem to have spent collectively $90 million per year over the last three years. Now you seem to be swimming in money, so there might be some momentum here. Who knows?

Mr. Hiram Beaubier: We have a fairly active program within Indian Affairs and Northern Development that is directed at southern-based properties, reserve-based properties, and properties in the north. Our annual budgets have been in the order of $20 million. That's money that has come from within the department itself. Both the Indian affairs and northern affairs sections have fairly complete inventories and a program based on risk assessment, which would guide our priorities for action on those properties.

The Chairman: What will be your role, Mr. Winberg, in all of this?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Each department is involved in implementing the central policy. So our job, as we've set it out, is to provide the overall framework. We will pull together the information in the specific departmental inventories and make it available in a central inventory in order to assess progress.

The Chairman: Would it also be to provide funds if requested?

Mr. Alan Winberg: The $90 million that is currently being used is in what we call the departmental A bases. That's the ongoing budgets of departments.

The Chairman: And should more be required—

Mr. Alan Winberg: There are specific cases that come forward, and a couple have been discussed. For the tar ponds, I believe funds were made available for specifics related to that site. I can't make a comment about other funding that might be considered at this point in time.

The Chairman: In each case, if money came forward, would it be upon a request by the custodian department, or not necessarily so?

• 1705

Mr. Alan Winberg: For specific projects that come forward, such as the tar ponds project, I believe it came forward from the department involved.

The Chairman: Can you confirm it?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Yes, we can confirm that request came from the Department of the Environment.

The Chairman: Fine, thank you.

On the second round, we have Mr. Casson, Mr. Lincoln, Madame Girard-Bujold, and Monsieur Charbonneau.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Emmett, in paragraph 10 of your statement you say that Canada's largest landlord is still far away from being able to provide Canadians with a clear, unambiguous statement on when all the potential risks to health and safety will be done, but the techniques and tools are all established.

Then the chairman alluded to this somewhat, that on the second page of Mr. Winberg's address he goes into quite a bit of detail on all the things that are being done. There's a working group that has been established; a website, an information source for managers dealing with contaminated sites; a subcommittee of the contaminated sites management working group; the establishment of a glossary; and another subcommittee is in the final stage of developing a guideline document on contaminated sites. Then it goes on to say that in addition to the work that is being done through the contaminated sites management work group, Treasury Board Secretariat has issued a draft policy on accounting for costs and liabilities related to contaminated sites. He then mentions a contaminated sites management framework.

And in the next paragraph he says that while still in the conceptual stage, the elements of such a framework would likely include an overall policy of the management of federal contaminated sites as well as a supporting policy suite, and that the current thinking is that the policy suite would contain requirements for the preparation of management plans, the establishment of a central inventory of sites as well as the technical requirements for such an inventory, factors for consideration.... Mr. Emmett, do you consider that page to contain the unambiguous, clear statement you're looking for?

Mr. Brian Emmett: I'd have to say it wasn't completely unambiguous and clear, no. What I think we would prefer to see, sooner rather than later, is an indication of a date at which an assessment of risks and an inventory will be complete. Beyond that, an action plan would be put in place to remediate the site by...I don't know what the date would be, but I think the government needs to bind itself to a commitment, to a date, to take action on these issues.

Mr. Rick Casson: I think that's probably what the chairman was asking for in reference to the tar ponds. And in visiting that site, you see there are very many connective problems: the tar ponds; the coking-oven site; Frederick Street; the landfill site above the town, out of which runs a creek of goodness knows what; plus the continued dumping of the sanitary sewer system directly into the ocean. There are so many problems there, I think it would be interesting, Mr. Guimont, to see your timeline on how to straighten that mess out.

Here is a question. Is our inventory of contaminated sites continuing to grow, or is it getting smaller? Are we still creating contaminated sites as a government?

Mr. Gordon Owen: Mr. Chairman, I think if one looks at it from the long-term perspective that some of these sites are the result of activities a long time ago, I think in an overall sense one can say we've significantly reduced the number of sites being created. As well, in more recent years we have the development of sustainable development strategies and that sort of approach, which has brought environment somewhat to the fore. As well, we have the implementation of the federal pollution prevention strategy and a number of other activities such as that across the board.

I would perhaps also ask the departments who operationalize this if they would have any comment to make on that as well.

• 1710

Ms. Ginger Stones: On behalf of DND, I would say that our inventory changes probably on a monthly basis as we update the information. It's an iterative process. We have identified the sites that we knew were there, but from time to time we do find new sites and we investigate them and add them to the list.

We have divided our contaminated sites program into.... When we brought in the contaminated sites work we were doing, we basically put down a wall and said that any sites we identified that were created prior to a specific date would be included in our program and would be eligible for funding under our environmental program to investigate and remediate them. Anything that was caused after the date we established, as a result of poor management practices, would not be eligible for funding out of the environmental program that had been established. It would have to come out of the working funds of the base. This was meant to provide an incentive to the bases to get on with cleaning up the sites they had identified, and to encourage them to change their practices and not continue to create sites.

Now, we still do have accidents that happen. We have spills that occur, lines that break—things that happen. But those are paid for out of the bases' working funds, and that reflects the fact that we have encouraged them to be careful and be watchful of the practices, because we are trying to get a handle on and clean up our sites.

In our sustainable development strategy, we have identified targets for the dates when we would clean them up or have them risk-managed. We said contaminated sites would be identified and remediated or risk-managed by the year 2001. Now a recent internal audit indicates that this might be a little optimistic. It is taking us a little longer to actually investigate and delineate the contaminated sites we have. But we are still working toward targets in the near term rather than the far-off years.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Casson.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was looking at the 1996 report of the Auditor General again, and it stated there that “Some estimates place the federal share”—of costs and liabilities relating to federal contaminated sites—“at $2 billion, excluding the costs of dealing with radioactive waste.” And the final recommendation, one of the main recommendations, was:

The government should establish a timetable for the identification, assessment and ultimate remediation of federal contaminated sites, particularly its high-risk sites, and ensure that progress against this timetable is monitored centrally across the portfolio of federal lands.

We've been talking about this up to now. On August 26, the President of the Treasury Board wrote to Mr. Caccia as chair of this standing committee and said that it was expected that departments would provide Treasury Board Secretariat with summarized information in this regard by December 31, 1998. He was talking about identifying and applying a cost to liabilities as defined under the policy.

In the report the Treasury Board Secretariat gave you, Mr. Commissioner, they said the revised policy would be issued this year. And in talking again about costs and liabilities, they said they expected to be in a position to report liabilities, as defined in their draft accounting policy, as of March 31, 1999.

Mr. Winberg, can you tell me if Treasury Board has defined and reported liabilities as of March 31, 1999—the potential liabilities for these sites—and what that liability is in total?

Mr. Allan Winberg: Yes, I can confirm that we did issue the draft accounting for liabilities policy, as you've discussed. That policy has been used by departments throughout the government in order to make an estimate for reporting purposes of the liabilities they face in this area, and the accounts, which are being prepared as of March 1999, are still under development. I believe the departments still have a week or two to come forward with their draft assessment of these liabilities. Once we see the information the departments are presenting, we can look again at the draft policy to see whether any changes are required.

• 1715

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: What bothers me with this is it seems we're in a “ring around the rosey” deal. You've established your reporting framework for costing liabilities as of March 1999. You've sent it out to the departments. Do they establish their deadline for telling you how they can comply with this or for giving you a figure?

Mr. Alan Winberg: Yes, they're being asked to comply. As pointed out in the report of the commissioner, some departments will be more advanced and able to apply this draft policy than others.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: One department there says.... And I'm coming back to this, because I can't understand why it would take four or five years for a department to identify, assess, and cost the remediation of its contaminated sites. They must be the worst possible sites, because it takes four or five years for one department here, the other one says it can't meet the deadline, then the fourth one says it needs more guidance.

Where do we stand in regard to these specific departments that the commissioner has identified? He didn't identify them in name, but he comments on eight of them. Can you tell me where each department stands today in regard to what they have told you so far?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I'll just say a word and then invite one of the departmental colleagues to speak. The representative from the Department of Transport has indicated that he would like to speak to this.

The reason different departments would be at different stages in being able to estimate this liability is the amount of detail required to make that estimate. That would be my short answer to the issue of why it would take longer for some than for others. This is an estimate for reporting purposes in the accounts of Canada. I'll pass it to my colleague from the Department of—

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just one minute now. I want to get this clear. It all comes back to the central recommendation of the auditor, that there should be a centralized system for doing it. Take ten departments. Each one has its own requirement. I suppose that has to do with the resources of the department—the type of sites you're talking about and the resources they have for assessing and identifying costs.

Would it be better to pool all the experts in regard to contaminated sites? We're talking about toxified sites. The Department of Transport might have a different type of land compared to the Department of National Defence, but in effect the common link is that all these sites are toxified. That's why we have this policy in the first place.

Wouldn't it be better to have a central unit that would be able to coordinate and tell us that by December 31, 2005, we will know exactly how much the federal government is liable for, and this is the timetable for completing the tar ponds and this is the timetable for completing this site and that site?

Mr. Alan Winberg: I have two points, and then I'll pass it to the representative from the Department of Transport.

First, I believe the draft guideline addresses the issue according to the national system for classifying contaminated sites as level one, level two, etc.

Second, the Public Accounts of Canada are produced as a central consolidated document. But the individual departmental budgets and expenditures are controlled within each department. We are in the process, through our improvements to the financial information strategy, of giving more authority. The departmental budgets are done department by department. But there is a central—

• 1720

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Before you pass, Mr. Winberg, I just want to understand. I don't work in these departments. The Government of Canada sooner or later will have to know whether the total is $2 billion or $2.3 billion. In a budget coming up somewhere—I know it's not your function, but the Minister of Finance will have to decide—do we pass a particular credit for one year or several years, so if we have $3 billion, $4 billion, $5 billion, or $2 billion, we will have x sum of money to deal with these things, rather than through the ministry's own budget? It could happen that way. But before doing that, we have to know how much it is. Right now the Auditor General says it's $2 billion. We don't know if it's $2 billion or $3 billion.

Mr. Alan Winberg: The consolidated account of Canada shows, as a footnote to our financial statement, the estimated liability for environment sites in the order of what you're saying—$2 billion.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay, but when are we going to know whether it's $2 billion or $3 billion? You will wait for each department to file these reports at their own times, so some of them will file earlier than others. Shouldn't there be some sort of coordinated policy, as asked for?

Mr. Alan Winberg: There is a draft policy that has been issued. It sets out the method in which an estimate is to be done of liabilities. The estimated liabilities regarding contaminated sites are displayed in the accounts of Canada as a footnote. It includes the consolidation of all the departmental liabilities into one. But we're looking at improving that through this draft policy.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: When will we know whether it's $2 billion or $3 billion?

I know you take me for somebody who doesn't understand. I do understand, but I want to find out because we were there. This report goes back to 1996. Now I see that one department says it will take four to five years to produce an estimate and identification and so forth. So in five years time we'll come back and say “Oh, well, in five years time we will know that....” We don't even know the name of it. The questions we are asking and the questions the commissioner is asking—not me—seem to say something is not quite right because we keep spinning wheels.

Mr. John Forster: I don't know whether the example of our department might help show how we're approaching it. But each department has to give Treasury Board this spring an estimate of what they think their liability costs are. In our case we have 1,100 properties. We suspect there are 300 sites where we have contamination. We've assessed about 230 of them and confirmed about 192. Then we'll go the next step and classify them according to the national standard.

At each step you kind of improve your information; you improve your ability to identify what the liability is. So this spring we'll give Alan our best estimate of what our liabilities are. Our target, similar to DND, is that by 2003 we will have inventoried and assessed and will have a management regime for each property.

So we'll give Alan an estimate this spring based on the information we have. We'll continue to refine it as we complete our inventory and assessment, and as our understanding of each site gets better. You'll get an estimate, and then each year our estimate will get better because we'll have completed our inventory. We've given ourselves a timeline, we've committed in our Estey strategy as to when we'll finish that assessment. So we will comply. We will give Alan our best estimate of our liabilities, and then we'll be refining it over the coming years as we get all of our assessments done by 2003.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Forster, thanks very much; you're extremely helpful. Now I'm starting to understand some.

My question really is if your department, which is a certain size and has certain resources, can identify and say that by 2003 you will progressively identify and cost it, and by 2003 you will have identified x number of sites, why can't the other departments do the same?

• 1725

What I'm trying to say is that from reading this chapter of the auditor's reports, paragraph 28.253, it seems to me there's a completely scattered pattern. The audit is very clear, but it seems as if for every department there's a different answer. So if you finish at 2003, why can't we have a common policy that by 2003 all departments will have identified? If you don't have enough resources to do so, can't we just shift resources from one to the other so that by 2003 we'll know exactly how much the Government of Canada has as a total liability, each department, how many sites, so at least we'll know that huge progress has been made? That's really what I was trying to get at.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I believe the experience that has been discussed at Transport Canada is similar to the experience of a number of departments. This is the reason it will take a period of years to refine the number on the estimate of environmental liabilities. But that reporting, as it has in the past, will continue to improve, and we have committed to do that. We have committed to report liabilities as set out in the draft policy, and that will continue to improve each year as the estimates get more refined.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

[Translation]

Ms. Girard-Bujold, please.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I listened to your comments and I do not understand why the government persists in refusing to create a central registry. I would go even further than Mr. Lincoln's comments. I note that all departments contain in their budget envelopes sums of money for the decontamination of their sites and that haphazard results are obtained. If you had a comprehensive policy to ensure that all efforts are being made in the same direction and that the departments are sharing the benefit of their experiences with others, would you not be able to reach your objective before 2003? There are all sorts of departments working in their own little corner. The activities of the Department of Transport, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of National Defence may have a detrimental effect on other departments, including the Department of the Environment. Everything is interconnected. We are all on the same territory. Whether we are dealing with sites on the 60th parallel, sites close to the American border or anywhere else in Canada, we all have an idea of what is in these sites because they were contaminated by people. Why are you so persistently opposed to better coordination?

When I read point 4 in Mr. Emmett's brief, I wondered whether the situation he was describing was really possible. He says:

4. Ten years after the start of this program (NCSRP), the federal government still does not have a complete picture of the potential risks to health, safety and the environment associated with its approximately 5,000 contaminated federal sites. As a result, it is unable to assure Parliament and the people of Canada that it can address these risks.

In view of all the technology we have available to us today, the program that you set up and the tools that you have developed, I cannot understand why you are not able to give us something acceptable, whether it be today or tomorrow. I am very surprised, gentlemen and madam.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. Would one of our witnesses like to make any comments or respond to these questions?

Mr. François Guimont: Mr. Chairman, I'll say something in response and then ask my colleague to add to my comments.

Last year I appeared before your committee; my colleague was not in attendance at the time. Since then, we have been able to observe the positive impact of your committee. As I explained in my statement, Environment Canada set up a unit to exercise more leadership in dealing with contaminated sites. I also raised the fact that the department is now co-chair, with the Department of National Defence, of the working group on contaminated sites. That was not the case last year and it was cause for surprise to committee members. If I remember correctly, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was presiding this group with the Department of National Defence. Since then we have taken on the role of joint chair of the working group.

In my opinion, these two initiatives are tangible signs of our wish to resume leadership in this area so as to create the cohesion and consistency that we are looking for.

• 1730

Of course, our group discusses the issues you have raised, including the various responsibilities that our respective departments assume. We do not work in different worlds. We agree with the Commissioner that it is possible to reconcile the responsibility of departments for their actions and greater federal leadership in order to establish an inventory and a well-defined framework for action, and we are in the process of finishing development of this framework.

This progress, including the presence of my colleague, who is now the person at Treasury Board responsible for activities relating to contaminated sites, was achieved over the past 12 months. It all stems from our interactions with the members of your committee. I must acknowledge that the committee has been able to move some issues along.

Now our challenge is to assume responsibility for the basic inventory that each department has compiled. We will need some time before we can achieve the perfect, complete and specific inventory that we are aspiring to. It will be a rather complicated exercise. Some departments have more properties than others. Although they may be familiar with the sites they currently have, sometimes new sites are added to the list that had not been recorded previously. I would have a hard time forecasting that within 12 or 15 months, we will have a precise inventory.

Are we currently working to compile this precise inventory? I believe that my colleague, Mr. Winberg, was very clear on that point, and we agree with the Commissioner's comments. Before we take tangible measures, we should have a good inventory, which we would like to organize in accordance with the policy that Treasury Board has brought forward. However, this won't be a quick fix. We will not be quickly giving you an inventory that people will call the Magna Carta of federal contaminated sites and we won't claim that it will remain completely unaltered over the next few years. We have done our work, and we know that we must work within these parameters.

I would like my dealings with my colleagues within my own department and colleagues from other departments to always be as simple, but unfortunately, that's not the case. These problems got worse over the years, and that is why defining and solving them is so complex.

Alan, let me turn it over to you.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I agree with what Mr. Guimont just said. I assure you that we will immediately begin establishing this inventory. As the Commissioner was saying in his report, we all know that it won't be finished tomorrow morning, but we will immediately record important information about the most dangerous sites on the inventory. Sites that are less dangerous will be added later.

We will try to move very quickly on this issue, while at the same time being practical and aware of the costs of this exercise. Our data has to be useful and reliable. We will respect the principles of sound risk management.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Are you going to follow the Auditor General's recommendations and start with the most dangerous sites before moving on to areas that aren't as much of a problem? Are you going to be able to meet the Auditor General's expectations?

Mr. Alan Winberg: We will use the information that each department has already gathered, and I believe that they are already using our classification system. The more dangerous site is, the higher the score we give it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold. Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, during the first hour, I had the impression that we were talking about a timetable of two years; people said a few times that we would still need two years. But when Mr. Forster spoke, he talked about achieving a perfect inventory by the year 2003, which is four years from now, not two.

To reassure the members of the standing committee, you could give us some information about your timetable, either now or in the next few weeks.

• 1735

You said that a perfect, complete inventory has to be drawn up, but Mr. Winberg just said that you are going to begin working anyway. You will never manage to draw up a perfect, complete, definitive inventory because you are always going to find out about new sites. So, you have to stop aiming for perfection; you have to set a date and agree that you are going to begin with the data that you have. If you find more data, you can update the inventory of contaminated sites every quarter. We will all understand that, because that's part of the process. At some point, stop trying to establish the perfect inventory and start working with what you have.

The committee would be reassured if you could tell us that by July 1st, 1999, you are going to stop chasing after all the inventories that are not finished, you are going to record the data you have, and six months later, you will draw up an action plan. My colleagues seem to be afraid, and I am too, that you want to draw up a perfect inventory, but you are constantly chasing after something that is evolving. I would like you to reassure me and give me a specific date by which we can expect to receive the assessments. You could establish a timetable and we could discuss it. If any unforeseen difficulties cropped up, you could tell us that at a later meeting, but at least we would have something to start with.

That isn't really a question, it's more of a comment.

Mr. Alan Winberg: I am willing to do that, Mr. Chairman. We all realize that perfection is impossible to achieve. Each time our colleague the Commissioner looks at our inventory, he will be able to say that it's not perfect, that it's not 100% complete. We fully agree with the member. We intend to immediately begin setting up the software and gathering the information that we will be recording in the inventory. We will make significant, remarkable progress. Furthermore, we are inviting the Commissioner to come and look at our work. As he indicated, he regularly monitors compliance with the recommendations in his report. We also have the pleasure of attending meetings quite regularly. We would be very pleased to appear before the committee once again and tell you about the progress that we will have made after today.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Winberg, we appreciate very much your appearance. The only reason you're being a bit put under the gun, so to say, today is due to the observation made by Mr. Emmett. In item number four, which was referred to by Madam Girard-Bujold, you are saying that ten years after the start of the program the government still doesn't have a complete picture of the potential risks to health and so on and so forth, so there is an element here of growing frustration that you are now encountering. You haven't been around for the last ten years, like some of us, so it's a bit unfair that it should somehow be unloaded onto your shoulders, but nevertheless you will understand why there is mounting frustration from this side of Parliament.

I hope you will understand that and perhaps you will take that into account.

Mr. Alan Winberg: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to come and talk about these plans we have, which we're committed to implementing, and to recognize what the commissioner has said at paragraph four of his opening statement.

The Chairman: Yes. I'm just explaining the reasons for the concentration of questions in the last few minutes.

Mr. Lincoln, please.

Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Just very briefly, I wanted to say very much the same thing that Mr. Caccia said. I know it's tough to come before these committees, and you get a lot of criticism. We're only reflecting what we read, what we try to appreciate from the reports. That's why sometimes we ask questions that might make you feel we're trying to be unfair. It's not at all that; it's just that we want to be satisfied that we have done our job as well.

• 1740

I wanted to say in closing that I leave today feeling better than I did when I came in. I get the sense, Mr. Winberg, that you're determined to see it through, and I was very impressed with the replies of Ms. Stones and Mr. Forster. Mr. Guimont I've heard many times, so we know each other going back a long time. It's the first time I've heard Ms. Stones, and Mr. Forster especially, and they seem to me to be very much in charge of their dossiers. I feel better that something is moving. If it isn't, then I'm sure Mr. Emmett will tell us sooner or later. So thanks very much.

The Chairman: Before concluding, I have a couple of brief questions.

Has there been a definition of minimum standards of due diligence, as identified or as commented upon by the Auditor General in the 1996 report? I'm referring to paragraph 28.251. If you can't answer that today, could you put it in the form of a letter?

Mr. Gordon Owen: We could do that.

The immediate response is that many individual departments have standards to which they clean up their sites.

The Chairman: So you would say that item, the minimum standards, has been resolved, then.

Mr. Gordon Owen: In some cases, yes.

The Chairman: In some cases yes, and in some cases no.

Mr. Gordon Owen: Correct.

The Chairman: Could you identify them for us by way of a memo?

Mr. Gordon Owen: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

As to the unresolved governance dilemma, as specified by the Auditor General, namely the capacity to manage horizontal issues, could we have some comment on that? Are we to conclude, Mr. Winberg, that we are moving in that direction at least?

Mr. Alan Winberg: As to the system set up by the Federal Real Property Act, which involves central leadership from Treasury Board Secretariat on policies and implementation of those policies by custodian departments, I believe we have a practical approach to making it work, in partnership with Environment Canada, with regard to the contaminated sites.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Would Mr. Emmett like to make some concluding remarks?

Mr. Brian Emmett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for having us here today.

I want to make a bit of an editorial comment. One of the things that struck me about the entire conversation and the questions today is how hard it is to clean up afterwards, how costly it is, how difficult it is, what druggery it is. It's not spending taxpayers' money on things for which, in some ways, members of Parliament and officials are in Ottawa.

It just struck me, and I was also struck by the mention of the sustainable development strategy, how much better off we are to avoid things like contamination in the first place. That's certainly something I intend to keep in mind the next time I go on a open-line radio show and some host says “I'm going to ask my listeners what they would prefer to have, the environment or a stronger economy”.

When you look at situations like this where neglect of the environment comes home to haunt you, and it's costly and you have a bill here.... I did a rough calculation. The nominal amount we have in the footnote for the contaminated sites would run my office for a thousand years and take me to worrying about the Y3K problem. So there's a huge amount of money involved here, and we're so much better off to avoid conversations like this by planning better in the future to avoid them.

The Chairman: In other words, you're saying pollution prevention is better than control.

Mr. Brian Emmett: Absolutely. If you want proof of that proposition, this discussion is it.

The Chairman: Mr. Emmett, we tried to get that point across with Bill C-32 over the last 12 months, with a mixed degree of success.

In any case, we want to thank you very much for appearing before us today. You were extremely informative and helpful. I'm sure my colleagues will want to revisit this issue in the appropriate time. We wish you well in making progress. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.